If you want BS or Political Correctness you have come to the wrong place.

FAQ How can you be an atheist Jew?

An atheist is one who disbelieves in (or denies) the existence of God, Gods, and other supernatural beings.
A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew, or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism.

August 28, 2008

Did Mohammed Exist?

The one thing that seems consistent when one analyzes the historical roots of religion is that there doesn't seem to be any contemporary evidence that the key people involved in the biblical stories existed.

This is true of Abraham and Moses. It is also true of Jesus. The fact is that you can find parallel myths and real history that existed prior to the time that the bibles were written, and these myths seem to always get to be part of the biblical figures real life story.

The Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Koran have one big thing in common. They were each written at least 100 years "after the fact," and there exists no contemporary evidence of the main players (other than the OT in regards to around 750-450 BC).

As for Jesus, there wasn't a word mentioned about him until Josephus noticed Christians (his followers), 50 years "after the fact." No Greek, Jewish, or Roman historian wrote about Jesus from 1-50 AD.

My "theory" is that Jesus was invented by Paul or someone like Paul in a dream. There were many Christian like cults around at that time, and the Jews were on the verge of getting their asses kicked out by the Romans, so their God was not doing the trick for them.

Over a few decades, Jesus morphed into a real person with a family and friends, all of whom were not around to confirm it by the time this happened.

Why is a myth easier to believe in? Simple. Since there have been no supernatural acts recorded since the bibles were written, and especially in our information age, where almost everyone has a camera that can record such an event if it happened, one can conclude that supernatural events don't happen.

By inventing (and not on purpose either) people who have supernatural powers and those around these people years after these events supposedly occurred, you basically eliminate all witnesses, which means that no one can say the storiesdidn't actually happen.

You have to understand that I assumed Jesus and Moses were historical figures until I hit the age of 41 or 42 when Mel Gibson announced he was doing a movie called the Passion. I started out doing Google searches to try to find out what Jesus looked like. What I found was astonishing. Not only was there nothing but speculation as to what Jesus looked like, there were a tremendous amount of Google matches that led me to sites that doubted Jesus existed period. And these sites made fantastic and logical points.

History isn't my number one forte. I still took the historical Mohammed for granted.
I always thought that the conquests began as soon as Mo got out of his cave and spread his word (apparently, not the case).

A discussion at Kafir Girl's blog where Mohammed's existence was doubted got my interest. I decided to go on a Google rampage.

By the time Mohammed supposedly lived, the middle east was full of New Testament and Old Testament stories, where Christians were looking for converts, and so were Jews:

From the 4th century AD, Christian bishops made notable conversions of the Kings of Himyar , Aksum and of Ethiopia generally. Narjan, an ancient pagan pilgrimage spot in a fertile valley on the trade route became a Christian stronghold. Medina became a centre of Jewish influence. Christianity and Judaism entered into competition in Arabia, encouraged by the Persians. In 522, King Dhu Nawas Yusaf "Lord of Curls" became the last elected Himyar king, descendent of a Jewish hero, who made war on the Christians. He offered the citizens of Naryan the choice of Jewry or death. When they refused he burned them all in a great trench. Afterwards Narjan as named "the trench". In response the Ethiopians overcame them and Abraha made San'a a Christian pilgrimage point which rivalled Mecca. This led to an expeditionary force of Christians to try to destroy the Ka'aba. In turn Persia invaded and for a short time the country became a Persian satrapy. This confused situation laid the seeds for the emergence of Islam.

When exactly the Arabs started actually buying into the bull that they were descended from the illegitimate son of Abraham and his concubine lover is a bit of a mystery, but I can see where this belief would lead to animosity towards the Jews, and I can also see how the writer of the Quran aka Koran would do his darnedest to spin the Arab bloodline in as positive a way as possible.

But the reality is the Mohammed supposedly had quite a few supernatural experiences, and no contemporary evidence of these experiences exist.

Many historians believe that it took 100 years after caveman Mo's supposed death, for the Koran was written. And there is no contemporary evidence (evidence during the time of Mo's supposed lifetime) which mentions Mo in any way shape or form. It took at least 13 years after his alleged death for that to happen. This leads me to believe that Mo was most likely a fictional person as well.

Here is a video that goes into detail regarding the questioning of whether Mo existed or not:

43 comments:

No, of coure Mohammad didn't exist, neither did Abraham or Moses or anyone who means anything to any religion. For that matter screw religion. And screw all those who practice it. Now I'm in line with you, right?

It is important for those in power to keep the belief going that Mo and Jesus and Abe were all real historical people because that lends credibility to otherwise incredible stories. And if the credibility is enough, it allows those folks to keep their power, instead of being ignored like the raving loons they are.

Of course, real or not has no bearing on the veracity of the religious claims made about and by them, but it sure makes it harder for the purveyors to sell it.

Of course, if you have evidence of their existence, feel free to present it for study and verification.

I don't think there was a historical Jesus either, but in the end, even if their was, that does not mean he did any miracles, that he was born of a virgin, that he was the son of a (yet-to-be-proven-to-exist) god, or that he rose from the dead. It does not mean any of the other metaphysical stuff believed by his followers is true.

I'll give you Abraham and maybe Moses; they're probably not real or more likely are composites of local folk heros. I can also see the issue with Jesus, though I personally believe he probably existed, but didn't do anything miraculous.

But Mohammad? They HAVE his BODY. It's in a tomb in Medina. His direct descendants and his wives wrote letters describing him and all accounts are very similar, and have him saying and doing the same things, even when those wives and descendants didn't live with each other or have any reason to work together. There aren't any contemporary records, probably because no one realized what he would be and most people were illiterate, but all the post-death writings and statements by those who had known him say the same things.

Mohammad may have been full of shit and not in the least inspired by God but he definitely was a real religious leader who really lived from sometime in the 570s to 632. It's pretty hard to argue when they have a body, a tomb, and a precise date and not one of the followers disputes that that is actually Mohammad's tomb and body.

I agree that Mohammad's existence is slightly more probable than Jesus/Moses/Abraham/etc. (which isn't saying a whole lot). For one thing, the Qur'an and Hadith contain references to Mohammad having "convenient" revelations when he needed justification for an action he was taking, which seems to be an unlikely interpolation if not based in some actual, egotistic leader.

While P.Crone regards the report of Thomas the Presbyter as reliable ("Arabs of Muhammad" in 643), Ohlig rejects it, as well as all the other early mentions of "Mohammed". John Damascenus ~730 is the first that he accepts.

He doesn't say Mohammed never lived, but he doubts that he lived in Mecca and that he wrote all of the koran.

Of course, the koran mentions someone called Mohammed and a prophet. But the prophet is not necessary always Mohammed and "Mhmd" might be a synonym for Jesus in 3 of the 4 occurrences ("the praised one").

If Mohammed lived in Hira or even in Persia and authored only a small part of the koran, did Mohammed exist?

If the Romans killed Jesus 1, whose name was not Jesus, and Jesus 2 had the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus 3's mother was named Mary, did Jesus exist?

There is a grave you can visit — whether there's actually a body in it is another thing. As far as I know, there weren't any writings by his wives. There are hadith, which are oral traditions, and those amount to little more than a game of Chinese telephone that extends over a century.

I don't know a lot about the historicity of Mohammed because I haven't had much time to read up on it yet, but I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in.

I think the one thing that makes me believe Mohammed actually existed is the Quran. I mean, bloody hell, that book doesn't paint a very good picture of the guy. Greedy, lustful, selfish, jealous, vengeful, totally full of crap. You'd think if he was a myth, he'd be a little less of a jackass.

On the other hand, I find his name kind of suspicious. Mohammed wasn't a common name at the time. And it literally means "praised," which doesn't seem that strange until you find out that the extra-Biblical prophets — the ones who didn't appear in the Bible — also have names that translate to a quality you'd expect a prophet to have. Saleh means “Righteous.” Shu’aib is “Who Shows the Right Path.” Hūd means “Forbearance.” That made the whole idea of a man named Mohammed seem kind of suspicious to me.

In the book of Ohlig, the numismatist Popp says that the first apperance of MHMT was on coins in east Persia in the year 38 "of the Arabs" (659 AD).

Abd al-Malik replaced the persian MHMT by Arabic "Muhammad". Some old coins of the Ummayads show crosses, and even the coins with "Muhammad" depict Jesus.

Abd al-Malik made an inscription in the Dome of the Rock (691): »praised be (muhammad[un]) the Slave of God ('abd-allah) and his messenger (...) Because the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, is the messenger of God and his word.«

So "muhammad" was an attribute of Jesus. It was regularly used together with "'abd-allah". 100 years later they thought Muhammad was another prophet and Abdallah was his father.

Then they had to invent the story that Muhammad's father worked for a pagan god Allah in the kaaba in Mecca. Where is Mecca? Continuatio Byzantia Arabica, a chronicle from the 8th century: »apud Maccam, Abrahae, ut ipsi putant, domum, quae inter Ur Chaldaeorum et Carras Mesopotamiae urbem in heremo adiacet«Abrahams house in Mesopotamia!

I'm never all that impressed with the arguments for the existence or non-existence of Sons of G-d/prophets/messiahs/massiachs, past, present or future.

Regarding Jebus/Mo, we'll never know for sure either way and that's one good reason not to worry about it too much. It does seem to me that in the atheist camp there is often a liiiittle too much zeal with which to go and try to prove what is basically the improvable. It's an inherent flaw of history (as a subject matter) that you can't run it back in the laboratory, like you can a chemical (or other science) experiment with an at first glance implausible (or plausible) outcome.

The supernatural doesn't exist (99.9999999999... % confidence level) and so whatever is attributed to the 'special guys' must be by definition quatch. Storytelling, anthropomorphising, nationalistic myth-building etc, it all goes on today as it did in them biblin' days of yore, business as usual...

Personally I'm far more interested in the influence that religion has had (past, present and future) on various societies, an influence which has been a mixed bag of positive and negative outcomes, rather than to try and prove or disprove what remains largely a historical mystery, buried quite deep in a largely unrecorded past.

The existence of Mohammed is really a critical question. I don’t have any thing that can assure me that he really existed since there are no pictures for him or real people wrote about him at that time. However, as a person who belongs to the Quranic believers, I have to believe in his existence since the Quran as a hole a valid book. If the Quran or if want to call it ( a book) stated a scientific evidenced that will be known after 1000 years than this is a miracle, so the logic says that I should believe in it as a whole. The doubt whether he is existed or not is not a new one. In fact, as per the Quran, people at that time did not believe in the stories in the Quran, and they were saying the same thing that this website is saying. They were saying the Quran is Myths. I think the intelligence is to live the incredible analysis for that book (Quran), and how it precisely relates the relationship and the personal desires in this life. For example, is it reasbobale that people lived in the dissert without any college level education knew that earth was spherical, and they knew that the moon revolves around the sun! Thousand of evidence in the book tells that the Quran was not written by any person. Therefore, I would take it as a whole and believe in Muhammad existence since this is the main argument in the Quran. Also, the Quran gave us the complete freedom to whether to believe in it or not. The Quran describes those who did not believe in it as a losers only and did not promise them a punishment or not, so I would go to the logical and safe side since the believe in Quran will not effect my life harmfully or badly.

"As for Jesus, there wasn't a word mentioned about him until Josephus noticed Christians (his followers), 50 years "after the fact." No Greek, Jewish, or Roman historian wrote about Jesus from 1-50 AD."For the sake of argument, let's say that Martin Luther King Jr. was shot 50 years ago--1958.... And no one wrote about him until earlier this year.IF he never existed, 50 years would not be enough time to wait before you tried to convince people of a lie that big. Not in our country anyway. Maybe in Asia you could fool people.In the same general area as Jesus is said to have lived, and according to you no more than 50 years later, the "lie" started. Maybe they could fool people that Jesus was who they say he was, but they couldn't fool people that lived in his general time and area that he existed.AD 50 is 18 years after they said Jesus was crucified.18 years is definetly not enough time.

Just one sentence said 18, my whole post had to do with 50. I just do not see how it could happen like you say, seeing that the first time someone wrote about Jesus was only about 50 years after and in the same general region. Now, this does not have to do with anything but the possible existence of Jesus back then. I know you know I believe in Him, but this is in response to you saying he never existed, period. If you respond that is cool, and you will have the last word on this one. I do not want to go in circles for 60 posts, this is just my point of view, that's all.

THE ACCOUNTANT AND THE JEW!A premium jew is the child of the jewess; the unorthodox jew is a goyim converso, but as Ben Gurion said; the purest orthodox jew: is anybody who claims to be a jew. As for the kosher accountant, he will give you any figure you want, just like the orthodox jew.

If you say that Moses and Jesus (peace be upon them both)did not exist because people who wrote about them did not live during their time is like saying that all the writings that exist about Alexander the great from Arrian, Plutarch etc may as well be thrown out of the window. Historians still use their work as almost authentic even though they never lived during his time.

Muhammad (peace be upon him) certainly did exist. His body is buried in Medina by the mosque he built which still stands today.

During his time, he wrote to different leaders and these letters have survived. If you ever get to travel to Turkey, the letter is held at Topkapi palace as well as his sword, tootth that he lost in a battle etc.

Atheists say it out of spite because its obviously for them the best way to do away with religion.

There was no reason to make up Alexander the Great, as he did nothing supernatural.Whether Mohammed existed or not doesn't change things for me one way or the other.There is no evidence for God or any other supernatural being.But there is no evidence for Mohammed, at least it is very flimsy.

Lies about oneself.Look into the mirror and see the person standing there. Do you see the monkey theory in those eyes.Wake up, time is running short, God is real beyond description. Use to be a fuzzy non believer of God

Had a spiritual experience that woke me up. Now I can not look back at the emptiness of mind when I was a fuzzy non believer.

Church,Temple, etc damaged people, so many, why did God show me the love of bringing a fully grown tough person to tears of love in front of so many people?

Now my path is more difficult because of the change I must go through. No bed of roses, it is difficult. Stopped drugging,drinking and smoking by the grace of God,Amen

The mind was so full of self righteous ideas that ended up being full of nonsense. God humbles those who try to exult one self. Guaranteed.

Peace be with you all.

ps I little history to think about the meaning.The Jews make up 1/4 of 1% of the worlds population. Since the conception of the Noble awards (1915?) for intellectual excellence, Jews have been awarded 20%. In chemistry 20%

Israel has approximately 5.5 million Jews, they are surrounded on three sides by 300 millions not so friendly neighbors. Statistically Israel should not exist.

Do you understand the evidence that was recorded in the beginning of the bible?

Atheist --- "Lies about oneself"Look into the mirror and see the person standing there. Do you see the monkey theory of evolution in those eyes?

I had a spiritual experience that woke me up. Now I can not look back at the emptiness of mind when I was a fuzzy non believer.

Church,Temple, etc damaged people, so many, why did God show me his love (Glory Cloud Descended). It brought this attitude tough adult to tears of joyful bliss, his love so powerful, words can not describe what happened.

God love brought me to tears in front of other, no control,just tears of joy that I had experienced his unconditional love. No lies, not made up, no emotional outburst, this was real beyond real.

Now my path is more difficult because of the change I must go through. No bed of roses, it is most trying at times. Stopped drugging,drinking and smoking by the grace of God,Amen

The mind was so full of self righteous ideas that ended up being full of nonsense. God humbles those who try to exult one self. Guaranteed.

THINKING THOUGHTS TO THINK ABOUT INSTEAD OF BEING SO NEGATIVE WITH YOUR LIFE OUTLOOK.

I little history to think about the meaning.The Jews make up 1/4 of 1% of the worlds population. Since the conception of the Noble awards (1915?) for intellectual excellence, Jews have been awarded 20%. of the total In chemistry they have 21% of the total

Israel has approximately 5.5 million Jews, they are surrounded on three sides by 300 millions not so friendly neighbors. Statistically Israel should not exist.

Do you understand the evidence that was recorded in the beginning of the bible?

Why do you we have the speeding up of technology. (Knowledge increases)Why do most people comment on were does the time go? (Speeding up of time)These two facts were written about in the Bible 3000 years ago.

Jump up and down all you like in deny what is so apparent, when you time comes to go home the eyes of your soul will be opened.

He made us for himself and our hearts are restless until we find rest with him.

One day is a thousand years, a thousand years is just a day. God's time is not ours. So be aware that what we think is a lifetime is no more that a fleeting second in God's time.

If you read to this ending, I hope my message has a little meaningful inspiration to guide you along in your journey.

Peace be with you.From a former fuzzy thinking Atheist.

ps I use the word his (God), for there is not another word in the English language to describe God. For God is not male or female, God is spirit, but I can not go any further with words to describe God, for I would be fooling myself and entering the area of the ego. Ego takes up a great place in small minds.

Lola, you were never an atheist. Please. One thing is that nobody goes from accepting evolution to not accepting it. There is overwhelming evidence that evolution is fact. If your religion cannot accept this, your religion is wrong right from the start.I'm happy that you got rid of the dependencies that could eventually kill you, but an actual God had nothing to do with it. There is absolutely no evidence for such a beast.

I've extensively research Mohammad and Quran .... Although there is a mention about Mohammad in Quran ... the earliest manuscript of Quran is in the forms of script written on the Dome of Rock in Jeruselam .... AND IT IS ALTERED ... that means that the script doesn't match any part in the QURAN itself .... only similiar ... but not exact .... AND most of the script written is to argue that Jesus is not son of God .... but rather he is the messenger/mesiah .... I personally think that the word "Mohammed" is refering to Jesus ..... Although, I also don't believe Jesus ever lived either ...

I think religions were political identity at those time which acted as laws for the society and reason to conquer other countries ....

Dude, are you serious? "The fact is that you can find parallel myths and real history that existed prior to the time that the bibles were written, and these myths seem to always get to be part of the biblical figures real life story."

What the fuck are you talking about?

Did you watch Zeitgeist and suddenly think everything they said is relevent? Thinking that Jesus never existed is disagreeing with 99% of biblical scholars. Infact most of them w It makes this blog look like a joke.

"As for Jesus, there wasn't a word mentioned about him until Josephus noticed Christians (his followers), 50 years "after the fact." No Greek, Jewish, or Roman historian wrote about Jesus from 1-50 AD.

You realize that certian books in the new testament are credibly evidence towards the existence of Jesus, right?

"Robert E. Van Voorst has stated that biblical scholars and historians regard the Jesus never existed thesis as 'effectively refuted',[9] with contemporary New Testament scholars typically viewing the Jesus-mythers arguments 'as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely...'"

But what more can I expect from an atheist jew? That's like double anti-Jesus, even if it means ignoring all evidence and facts and being blinded by your stupid beliefs

I was an atheist Jew long before I discovered there was no evidence for Jesus.And you can't use a bible to prove his existences. Outside of that there is no evidence, and there should be tons.

I don't care about your claim about biblical scholars who are Christian to begin with. Secular historians KNOW there is no evidence for Jesus, and in fact, the myths at the time pretty much show that you are being taken for a ride.

Secular historians agree that Jesus existed. The new testament can be used as evidence for his existence, because it is a historical document like any other. And there is evidence of Jesus from nonbiblical sources, Josephus, Tacitus, pliny the Younger, etc. Where the fuck do you get your information from?

Max, you are deluded. The bible cannot be used as evidence and isn't used as evidence by any reputable historian.As for outside sources. NONE were contemporary. They didn't live the same exact time your mythological Jesus supposedly existed.Jesus was first mentioned by Josephus at least fifty years after Jesus supposedly lived. He observed Christians, not Christ. And secular evidence points to the fact that the first Christians were gnostics....they didn't believe in a real life Jesus but only a spiritual one.

You can beat yourself on the chest about this all you want, but there is no contemporary evidence Jesus existed, and my particular theory has more evidence going for it...that Jesus was an invention by Paul or someone like Paul, and his dream Messiah morphed into what followers believed was a real person with a real story over centuries. The fact the story is a loosely based copy of the Mithra story is enough to almost believe with certainty that Jesus never existed.

You've written a good blog. Thanks. My only criticism is that the video that you used to discredit the idea of an historical Mohammad was produced by an evangelical Christian. That adds bias to his video. Both Christ and Mohammad are fictional characters, so the video is misleading.

Check out Robert Spencer's new book, Did Muhammad Exist?http://www.amazon.com/Did-Muhammad-Exist-Inquiry-Obscure/dp/161017061X

"Did Muhammad Exist? reveals:

-How the earliest biographical material about Muhammad dates from at least 125 years after his reported death -How six decades passed before the Arabian conquerors—or the people they conquered—even mentioned Muhammad, the Qur’an, or Islam -The startling evidence that the Qur’an was constructed from existing materials—including pre-Islamic Christian texts -How even Muslim scholars acknowledge that countless reports of Muhammad’s deeds were fabricated -Why a famous mosque inscription may refer not to Muhammad but, astonishingly, to Jesus -How the oldest records referring to a man named Muhammad bear little resemblance to the now-standard Islamic account of the life of the prophet -The many indications that Arabian leaders fashioned Islam for political reasons"

Seems rather flimsy to argue that Mohammad did not exist when the sole "miracle" that he purported to have (according to the Qu'ran) was the production of the Qu'ran itself. As to the miracle of the Qu'ran, it can be doubted whether the production of it could be done by an illiterate man (and you can doubt whether Mohmamad was illiterate) but you cannot deny that the Qu'ran does exist.

Contrast that to every other individual about whose existence there may be questions (Jesus, Abraham, Moses). Don't you think that if Mohammad didn't exist, the Qu'ran would have mentioned all sorts of miracles that he had accomplished? Indeed, the book itself takes Mohammad to task for introducing the Satanic Verses into the text and then having to reverse himself. If the religion were invented for political purposes without a real founder, don't you think that these inconvenient passages would be cleansed?

I am interested to know what your background in History, Religious Studies, or theology is to be making such strong claims. It is the general consensus among scholars in the history of Christianity that Jesus was a historical person, albeit a rabbi from Nazareth and the son of a man named Joseph. Certainly very few legitimate historians even entertain the possibility that Muhammad did not exist, and I have feeling that those who take that question seriously would be laughed out of the field. Also, the earliest texts of the Qu'ran date back to roughly thirty years after the prophet Muhammad's death, during the reign of the caliph Uthman. There are also Qu'ranic inscriptions in the Dome of the Rock that date back to the year 692, sixty years after Muhammad's death. Byzantine sources mention Muhammads existence within two years of his death. I you are going to make ridiculous self-serving claims, you should figure out exactly what arguments they opposing side has.

What I do realize is anyone who does any research on whether a historical Jesus existed, they end up having major doubts. There is no contemporary evidence Jesus ever existed. It isn't inconvenient to me that Jesus or Mohammed may have existed or not. I was an atheist and assumed their existence, it didn't make me more of an atheist after I looked into these things more. I think a lot of people live under the assumption that Jesus and Moses existed as real people, but there is no evidence, as for Mohammed, I really haven't looked into it much, but I made this post as more of a question to his existence.

Baconeater said "What I do realize is anyone who does any research on whether a historical Jesus existed, they end up having major doubts."

Really? "Anyone"? Look up what historians Bart Ehrman, Michael Grant, Richard Burridge, N.T. Wright (just to name a few) have to say. To quote the agnostic Erhman (2011) 'He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees.'

When the mainstream scholarly view is that Jesus did exist, it begs the question, what did you do for research, exactly?

Baconeater said "There is no contemporary evidence Jesus ever existed."

Of course there isn't contemporary evidence! The events happened 2000 years ago. Is this what you are looking for?Another bold statement which suggests that you have not properly researched this. If there is no evidence, then why do most modern historians in this field assert his existence? What would you say to inform them that they completely wrong?

Baconeater said " It isn't inconvenient to me that Jesus or Mohammed may have existed or not. I was an atheist and assumed their existence, it didn't make me more of an atheist after I looked into these things more."

I take your point, though you must admit that it is easier to ignore something if it doesn't exist than if it does. Please understand that it is your apparent lack of research which makes me assume you really want to believe Jesus didn't exist.

Baconeater said "I think a lot of people live under the assumption that Jesus and Moses existed as real people, but there is no evidence, as for Mohammed, I really haven't looked into it much, but I made this post as more of a question to his existence."

Again with the profoundly inaccurate "no evidence" idea. Anytime I see a Myther say "no evidence", I immediately know that what they mean is that they are not convinced by the evidence. You can't possibly say there is no evidence at all. In your case it appears that you didn't even examine the evidence enough to even have your opinion.

You state in your blog that there is no evidence that the New Testament and Koran were written any earlier than 100 years "after the fact". This is another HUGE indicator that you have not even done cursory research. Where did you get this information from?

As it stands it is ludicrous to suggest that the Koran was compiled any later than 40 years after Mohammed died, and this means it would have been written even earlier.

Dating the NT is trickier, but the Gospel of John is understood to be latest of the four gospels, and scholars place it between 60-70 years after AD 33. The majority of Paul's epistles are understood to have been written within 40 years (as the later estimate) after Jesus, putting them squarely in the time period of events described. And this doesn't even take into account those many scholars who support much earlier dating.

I do commend you for not ignoring criticism of your work. I know a lot of bloggers who either don't allow comments, or only publish the ones that they feel comfortable with.

I believe that there should be at least some contemporary (what I mean by contemporary is something that acknowledges Jesus that dates back to the exact time he supposedly lived). There is none. As for the the scholar and historian claim, I don't take the word of a scholar or historian who says that most believe he existed. No worthy historian would believe he existed without a shred of evidence. The myth story makes more sense to me, and until I see some evidence, and I'm open to evidence for either Jesus, God or Moses, I'll stick with the idea that all three are man made.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory It makes no sense that there is no contemporary evidence for someone who was supposed to be so great an individual. Apologists for Christ just don't do it for me.